Tue, 15 Mar 2005 15:35:56 +0100, Michael Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 09:24:30AM -0500, Barry Hawkins wrote: [...] >> Iterpreted languages hardly need me to back them up, but I think they >> have a proven track record. Taking one of the leading interpreted >> languages and choosing to make its use of native compiled binaries as >> a de facto for our distro just doesn't sit well with me. > > You are right, its not always a gain. Tom Tromey told me that he is > aware of one case where the native library is slower then interpreting > the jar. I think it's faster when it starts up, and I think there are more than one case where native is slower the Sun's JIT! ;-) Fixing JIT'd be very cool! ;-) > Doing (c) and fixing JIT runtimes can be good, but it ist a hard work > too. The Kaffe people put much efforts into this. JIT works find on i386 > but not at all on powerpc for them. Same mixture for all the other > Debian archs. When Kaffe supports the BC-ABI too this will be huge gain > after all as it is surely be faster then non-JITed bytecode. The idea is > make the code reuseable to other VMs can adopt it too. > > We have now 3 possibilitiest: > > 1) compile all to native > 2) compile a selected group of jars to native > 3) dont compile to native at all and decide later > > In current stage we should go for either (2) or (3) and we should proove > that its a gain. Otherwise we just waste archive space for no gain which > is stupid. About the archive space, don't forget you have to multiple the space by the number of different arches (12 or so)!.. -- .''`. : :' :rnaud `. `' `- Java Trap: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
